Well back in the reality of today if you do decide to do the right thing be prepared to be punished for it.
Here's some helpful types you might fit in with.
"Cops Assault And Arrest Two Marines Who Were Giving First Aid To An Unconscious Man"
“What you’re seeing here appears to be assault and battery under color of authority and is definitely a violation of the civil rights of these Marines”
http://www.mintpressnews.com/cops-a...ines-giving-first-aid-unconscious-man/198690/
I have to agree with James Canby. Seriously. WHY get involved in a fight that doesn't involve you? Ok, ok. MAYBE if it's an able-bodied person beating on a person on crutches or in a wheelchair. But these women weren't. AFAIC he's trying to play hero and maybe hoping to get some open-range-heifer. I dunno. But I know he had it coming to him.\
Did he have the right to draw down in this incident? By all means, no way. He precipitated the event. AFAIC he should have been charged. If I was the manager of that place I'd 86 him.
By that logic, I assume you were in defense of Trayvon, as well? That type of reasoning means that if the KKK is marching through the streets, minorities have the right to assault them, because they 'precipitated the event,' as well...does it not? The man in the video had every right to be in the McDonalds eating his meal. Both he, and the females had every right to speak inside of the store. The women had NO right to assault him with dining furniture, and what looked like a broomstick.
How about this?:
Officer: *approaches you on the sidewalk* "I need to see some identification."
You: "May I ask why?"
Officer: *knocks you out and takes your ID from your wallet*
Completely justified because you just HAD to open your mouth..
No, you assume incorrectly. The man stuck his nose into a fight that as not his. As for the KKK, that crap happens anyhow so I don't know why you bring that into the discussion.By that logic, I assume you were in defense of Trayvon, as well? That type of reasoning means that if the KKK is marching through the streets, minorities have the right to assault them, because they 'precipitated the event,' as well...does it not? The man in the video had every right to be in the McDonalds eating his meal. Both he, and the females had every right to speak inside of the store. The women had NO right to assault him with dining furniture, and what looked like a broomstick.
Unrelated.How about this?:
Officer: *approaches you on the sidewalk* "I need to see some identification."
You: "May I ask why?"
Officer: *knocks you out and takes your ID from your wallet*
Completely justified because you just HAD to open your mouth..
I have to agree with James Canby. Seriously. WHY get involved in a fight that doesn't involve you? Ok, ok. MAYBE if it's an able-bodied person beating on a person on crutches or in a wheelchair. But these women weren't. AFAIC he's trying to play hero and maybe hoping to get some open-range-heifer. I dunno. But I know he had it coming to him.\
Did he have the right to draw down in this incident? By all means, no way. He precipitated the event. AFAIC he should have been charged. If I was the manager of that place I'd 86 him.
By that logic, I assume you were in defense of Trayvon, as well? That type of reasoning means that if the KKK is marching through the streets, minorities have the right to assault them, because they 'precipitated the event,' as well...does it not? The man in the video had every right to be in the McDonalds eating his meal. Both he, and the females had every right to speak inside of the store. The women had NO right to assault him with dining furniture, and what looked like a broomstick.
How about this?:
Officer: *approaches you on the sidewalk* "I need to see some identification."
You: "May I ask why?"
Officer: *knocks you out and takes your ID from your wallet*
Completely justified because you just HAD to open your mouth..
James- this post got me thinking. I agree with you on the clean hands aspect and believe you to be accurate. Just a question about whether verbally inserting into a conversation would be breaking that concept.Here in Virginia (and, I suspect, in most states) one can only stand one's ground and use deadly force if they have "clean hands" -- that is, they had taken no action to precipitate or inflame the event in which they now had reason to protect themselves. If he had kept his big mouth shut and let the argument play out between the customers and the store employees, he would not have been attacked. The customers did not become physically abusive until he had interjected himself into the situation.
Carrying a firearm demands that we not only know when and how it might be reasonable to use deadly force to protect oneself, it also demands that we know when it is NOT reasonable to get involved.
My original comment stands, and I find your response to be non-germane and somewhat inane. As to your first comment, you know what typically occurs when you assume and posit a strawman.
"If we interpret the discussion of "imperfect defense" in Hash for the proposition that one can provoke a confrontation and still avail himself or herself of the defense of justifiable homicide, such holding was overruled by Jackson v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 845, 36 S.E. 487 (1900). However, if we interpret Hash to hold that one may avail himself or herself of "imperfect defense" if he or she provoked an attack without felonious intent, such holding merely is the law of voluntary manslaughter as it currently stands in the Commonwealth...
"A jury convicted Darryl Carneal Law of second degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and maliciously discharging a firearm in an occupied building. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in refusing his proffered instruction of justifiable self-defense. We conclude the defendant was at fault in bringing about the dispute, and the trial court properly refused the instruction...
"Heat of passion negates malice only when some "reasonable provocation" creates a "furor brevis which renders a man deaf to the voice of reason." Rhodes, 41 Va. App. at 200-01, 583 S.E.2d at 775-76 (quoting Caudill v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 81, 85, 497 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1998)). The provocation must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 240, 427 S.E.2d 394, 406 (1993); Willis v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 224, 231, 556 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2001); Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814, 823, 525 S.E.2d 640, 645 (2000) ("In order to determine whether the accused acted in the heat of passion, it is necessary to consider the nature and degree of provocation as well as the manner in which it was resisted." (quoting Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 22, 25, 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987))). The "victim of the crime" must be the provoker, Arnold v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 781, 789, 560 S.E.2d 915, 919 (2002), and there must be a "simultaneous occurrence" of both provocation and passion, Graham v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 662, 671, 525 S.E.2d 567, 571 (2000) (citing Canipe v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 629, 643, 491 S.E.2d 747, 753 (1997)).
In this case, the trial court correctly ruled that the heat-of-passion instruction could not be given even under Smith's version of the facts. No rational factfinder could find that Mosley, a victim of an armed robbery, did anything that objectively speaking could be said to have reasonably provoked Smith to shoot him. At most, the evidence showed only that Mosley attempted to defend himself and refused to turn over his leather jacket to Smith. Cf. Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 49, 553 S.E.2d 546, 552 (2001) ("A person who reasonably apprehends [imminent] bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault." (quoting Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1989))); Connell v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 429, 439, 542 S.E.2d 49, 54 (2001) ("One who is assaulted may and usually does defend himself, the ensuing struggle cannot be accurately described as a mutual combat.").
"Appellant next contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. We disagree.
"Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused must prove by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt." Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (citing McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978); Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 979, 234 S.E.2d 286, 292 (1977)). "[A] person assaulted while in the discharge of a lawful act, and reasonably apprehending that his assailant will do him bodily harm, has the right to repel the assault by all the force he deems necessary, and is not compelled to retreat from his assailant, but may, in turn, become the assailant, inflicting bodily wounds until his person is out of danger." Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 979, 167 S.E. 260, 260 (1933) (quoting Jackson's Case, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452 (1898))."
See Also : Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1998).
Thank you skid its much appreciated. There seems to be a wealth of case law on this subject too. It does appear difficult to even tell someone verbally to stop something or that you thing they are being -------------- . Seems if you do and its deemed to escalate it you own it.Case law suggests it is difficult to interject oneself "nicely" and thus retain innocence - in for a penny in for a pound.
stay safe.
Start here:
http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
Connell v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 429, 542 S.E.2d 49 (2001)
Darryl Carneal Law v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2001 Unpublished)
Smith v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2004 Unpublished)
Decarlos Coleman v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2002 Unpublished)
Here in Virginia (and, I suspect, in most states) one can only stand one's ground and use deadly force if they have "clean hands" -- that is, they had taken no action to precipitate or inflame the event in which they now had reason to protect themselves. If he had kept his big mouth shut and let the argument play out between the customers and the store employees, he would not have been attacked. The customers did not become physically abusive until he had interjected himself into the situation.
Carrying a firearm demands that we not only know when and how it might be reasonable to use deadly force to protect oneself, it also demands that we know when it is NOT reasonable to get involved.
My original comment stands, and I find your response to be non-germane and somewhat inane. As to your first comment, you know what typically occurs when you assume and posit a strawman.
Actually, I'd call that situation a good case for minding one's own business. The customers were upset with McDonald's employees and did not go ballistic until another customer injected himself into the argument. When I am in a store, I am there to be a customer. I am not there to mediate or moderate others' behavior regarding store policy. Unless my family members or I are being subjected to deadly force or grievous bodily harm -- which was NOT the case in this situation -- my proper response is to leave the scene. I find it hard to understand how any regular contributor on OCDO feels like this situation could have justified the use of deadly force, especially since the man involved himself and helped to exacerbate the situation.
I suppose if he was unable to remove himself from the fight and possibly the building some form of physical defense might be warranted. Even if it's a retreat to the restroom and lock himself in a stall (though that's extreme).I'm inclined to agree, although from a strictly moral standpoint I would have to maintain that no amount of verbal provocation could justify assault with a chair, and so the gentleman's right of self defense must be considered intact at least to some degree.
We may not like to think of such "ladies" being shot for what are (in the grand scheme of things) relatively minor assaults, but the solution to that problem has to be folks not attacking other folks with chairs.
I suppose if he was unable to remove himself from the fight and possibly the building some form of physical defense might be warranted. Even if it's a retreat to the restroom and lock himself in a stall (though that's extreme).
I think all he had to do is apologize for getting into it and leave.
I failed to see the gentleman offer any provocation for the assault to which he was subjected. Perhaps you can point out the part I missed.
I failed to see the gentleman offer any provocation for the assault to which he was subjected. Perhaps you can point out the part I missed.
provoke
verb (used with object), provoked, provoking.
1.
to anger, enrage, exasperate, or vex.
2.
to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity):
The mishap provoked a hearty laugh.
3.
to incite or stimulate (a person, animal, etc.) to action.
4.
to give rise to, induce, or bring about:
What could have provoked such an incident?
5.
Obsolete. to summon.
provoke verb
: to cause the occurrence of (a feeling or action) : to make (something) happen
: to cause (a person or animal) to become angry, violent, etc.
pro·vokedpro·vok·ing
Full Definition of PROVOKE
transitive verb
1
a archaic : to arouse to a feeling or action
b : to incite to anger
2
a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : evoke <provoke laughter>
b : to stir up purposely <provoke a fight>
c : to provide the needed stimulus for <will provoke a lot of discussion>
— pro·vok·er noun
See provoke defined for English-language learners »
See provoke defined for kids »
Examples of PROVOKE
His remarks provoked both tears and laughter.
He just says those things because he's trying to provoke you.
The animal will not attack unless it is provoked.
provoke
Anything that brings about a strong reaction can be said to provoke. You can provoke that lion if you want. But if he responds by attacking, don't come running to me.
Let's consider some people who have been known to provoke. Lenny Bruce, was more than just a comedian. He was a "provocateur" who used humor to deliver his controversial diatribes. Humor was his way to provoke people to think. Madonna made her name not only by producing a memorable catalogue of great pop songs, she proved herself to be a master at provoking people through her outrageous attire and lyrics. The moral of this story? It's possible to provoke both positive and negative responses.
DEFINITIONS OF:
provoke
1
v provide the needed stimulus for
Synonyms:
stimulate
issue a challenge to
v call forth (emotions, feelings, and responses)
Synonyms:
arouse, elicit, enkindle, evoke, fire, kindle, raise
create, make
make or cause to be or to become
v evoke or provoke to appear or occur
“Her behavior provoked a quarrel between the couple”
Synonyms:
call forth, evoke, kick up
arouse, bring up, call down, call forth, conjure, conjure up, evoke, invoke, put forward, raise, stir
summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic
cause, do, make
give rise to; cause to happen or occur, not always intentionally
v annoy continually or chronically
Synonyms:
beset, chevvy, chevy, chivvy, chivy, harass, harry, hassle, molest, plague
annoy, bother, chafe, devil, get at, get to, gravel, irritate, nark, nettle, rag, rile, vex
cause annoyance in; disturb, especially by minor irritations
I failed to see the gentleman offer any provocation for the assault to which he was subjected. Perhaps you can point out the part I missed.
If not, then I have to guess from the actions of the women caught on video that the man was clearly in the wrong.